Hot Topics:

User Profile: COMEBACKSOON

Comments

Blinknight, you argue like a troll. Stop relying on ad-hominem attacks and face the facts.

For as long as science has existed, we have attempted to apply our discoveries in trial of our beliefs about the past and our origins. All such activities fall within the realm of science, but their products are very different. As I have explained above, one results in repeatable, testable knowledge, while the other results in uncertain inferences, subject to bias and debate. Only in the last hundred years have people attempted to convince the world that their products are the same, and the reason for this is clear: to spread their anti-God religion, and to justify tyranny. It is because of this institutional deception of the culture that reasonable people must now learn to distinguish between the two.

Your summation of my argument is ridiculous. My logic and explanation was perfectly sound. Your argument should not be that forensic criminology always results in certain knowledge of the past, because that is ridiculously, obviously untrue. Instead you should argue from the standpoint of the reliability of the contradictory evidence. From there, though, we will find that our division is one of disputed authority: you trust the fallible word of man, while I trust the infallible word of God.

However, your refusal to acknowledge obvious truths makes me wonder if you are not a paid troll, or else just zealously anti-God.

The legitimacy of forensic evidence in justice is limited by the same logical limitations of other historical sciences. The presence of the suspects fingerprints on the murder weapon lets us know, beyond the shadow of a doubt that…wait for it…the suspect’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.

We INFER from the presence of the fingerprint that the suspect came in contact with the murder weapon, and further INFER that the contact included the use of the murder weapon in the act of murder.

In the presence of contradictory evidence, a jury would have to consider the possibilities that (1) the suspect might have come in contact with the murder weapon, but not in the act of murder; (2) the suspect never came into contact with the murder weapon, but another person placed the fingerprints onto the murder weapon in order to frame him. The unlikeliness of these scenarios must be weighed against the reliability of the contradictory evidence.

In the context of goo-to-you evolution as the cause of today’s biodiversity, there is only one eye witness account of the beginning of life in this world, and many people have found this witness to be otherwise completely reliable. We therefore reasonably consider the research that claims to prove common descent with skepticism, and find that in all cases, instead of proving common descent, the research simply assumes common descent to be true, and interprets the results accordingly.

Let’s assume the following: (A) Fossil One was found buried in a certain place. (B) Fossil Two was found buried further underground. (C) Fossil One and Fossil Two somewhat resemble each other, but have major differences, both aesthetically and genetically.

That the above was discovered in nature is what you call directly observable. To conclude that Fossil One is an ancestor of Fossil Two is an inference that is based (at minimum) on the further unverifiable assumption that random mutation can produce the vast additions to both the quantity and complexity of genetic information that must have occurred during the unobserved generations between the two.

“Similar, therefore related” is an inference.

That evolution is historical science does not by itself denigrate evolution. Historical science has its place. But to pretend that evolution is observable, testable, repeatable is both obviously untrue and widely touted by radical evolutionists.

First, the theory of evolution is constantly being modified due to its predictions not panning out. Second, the “tests” to which you are referring always follow the form, “if X caused Y in the past, then we should expect to find Y in nature.” The “repetition” of this kind of test is to explore nature and see if you find Y. The problem with this is that (1) Y has never been observed to be the result of X, (2) Y is just as likely to be caused by something other than X, and (3) depending on how well Y has been defined, it may be debatable whether or not Y was actually found in the first place (as in “if random mutation caused our bodies to be as they are, then we would expect to find many useless organs in our bodies. The appendix is a useless organ, therefore random mutation must have caused our bodies to be as they are.” Only it turns out that appendixes are not useless organs, and many healthy ones were removed from peoples’ bodies due to this bad thinking caused by belief in evolution). The historical science conclusion that “Y is found in nature, therefore X caused Y” is just poor logic.

The same logic has been used in the age of the earth. Learn to distinguish between actual confirmed knowledge and the biased application of unverifiable assumptions. Radiometric dating is heavily relied upon in aging, and yet it obviously contains several assumptions all by itself.

You’ll notice the quotes I used, and also consider the context of the comment. Ham’s blog once again differentiated between observational science which, as you say, is conducted in a laboratory environment…etc. and historical science. Are both practiced in science? Yes, absolutely. And yet they are distinct, and in the context of evolution, the distinction is very relevant.

Observational science results in independently verifiable knowledge. This is the “science” that people think about when they are told, “science tells us X”. The results of historical science are inferences about the past, based on what is observed in the present. The beliefs about the past cannot be verified with certainty, and are subject to a wide array of biases, and are always debatable. There is only one side of the evolution debate trying to shut down the debate though.

He is obfuscating the law of gravity, which describes what massive bodies do, and the theory of gravity, which attempts to explain why. This is another way that dishonest or uneducated evolutionists confuse laymen to believe that evolution is a scientific fact.

So pretending something is true that can’t be observed, tested or repeated is “science”? Your assertion that believing in billions of years and evolution is “living in reality” begs the question at hand.

Its an unverifiable belief about our origins. That is religion. And as Dawkins has demonstrated, it is an anti-God religion.

This has become all too common of a response from the religious...and it shows a lack of understanding about science itself. While some science is conducted in a laboratory environment where experimentation and repetition can be done by scientists, it is not the only way to conduct science. Historical evidence through the use of fossil records and naturalistic observation of ecological systems are used to examine biology in action....

[7] February 17, 2015 at 2:55pm

COMEBACKSOON responded:

You’ll notice the quotes I used, and also consider the context of the comment. Ham’s blog once again differentiated between observational science which, as you say, is conducted in a laboratory environment…etc. and historical science. Are both practiced in science? Yes, absolutely. And yet they are distinct, and in the context of evolution, the distinction is very relevant.
Observational science results in independently verifiable knowledge. This is the “science” that people think about when they are told, “science tells us X”. The results of historical science are inferences about the past, based on what is observed in the present. The beliefs about the past cannot be verified with certainty, and are subject to a wide array of biases, and are always debatable. There is only one side of the evolution debate trying to shut down the debate though.

[1] February 17, 2015 at 3:16pm

LibertarianSocialist responded:

@COMEBACKSOON
Ah...I see. You are using the term "historical science" as a way to denigrate evolutionary science.
However, you are incorrect...there is direct observational evidence (not inferential) in fossil records and in observation of biological beings for evolution. People do not simply "believe" in evolution because it was once part of "history."

[6] February 17, 2015 at 3:27pm

COMEBACKSOON responded:

Let’s assume the following: (A) Fossil One was found buried in a certain place. (B) Fossil Two was found buried further underground. (C) Fossil One and Fossil Two somewhat resemble each other, but have major differences, both aesthetically and genetically.
That the above was discovered in nature is what you call directly observable. To conclude that Fossil One is an ancestor of Fossil Two is an inference that is based (at minimum) on the further unverifiable assumption that random mutation can produce the vast additions to both the quantity and complexity of genetic information that must have occurred during the unobserved generations between the two.
“Similar, therefore related” is an inference.
That evolution is historical science does not by itself denigrate evolution. Historical science has its place. But to pretend that evolution is observable, testable, repeatable is both obviously untrue and widely touted by radical evolutionists.

February 17, 2015 at 9:01pm

blinknight responded:

Evolution can be tested, repeated, and observed. Your incredulity on the subject doesn't really change taht.
Evolution does not address the origin of life.

[-1] February 18, 2015 at 7:22am

fortherecord responded:

"Evolution can be tested, repeated, and observed. Your incredulity on the subject doesn’t really change taht. "
Human Evolution from Animals (H.E.A. or HEA) cannot be tested and repeated.
No one ever has or even can show animals naturally 'evolving' into humans as we watch.

[-1] February 18, 2015 at 8:22am

EmeraldHorizon responded:

@blinknight Different parts of the theory of evolution can be tested or observed. Obviously, small examples of evolution that occur today can be directly observed whilst macroevolutionary transitions that occurred in the past cannot be directly observed but are tested using the fossil record or genetic experiments in an attempt to confirm predictions derived from said hypothetical transitions, quite successfully sometimes. Although, hypothesized transitions that fail to pass the tests are dismissed.

[1] February 18, 2015 at 9:57am

blinknight responded:

@fortherecord
Here's hoping you are never the victim of a crime that isn't recorded on video then because you apparently believe that no matter how many times we can show a trail of evidence that includes things like DNA and finger printing results in evidence enough for a conviction, you would be cool with letting the criminal off if that's all they have.
Alternately you'd be fine with convicting somebody based on eye witness testimony, because they 'saw it', even if forensic evidence makes it impossible for them to have done it.
But then again, I'm debating somebody who doesn't know what a logical fallacy is, so... yeah.

February 18, 2015 at 11:34am

fortherecord responded:

"Here’s hoping you are never the victim of a crime that isn’t recorded on video then because you apparently believe that no matter how many times we can show a trail of evidence that includes things like DNA and finger printing results in evidence enough for a conviction, you would be cool with letting the criminal off if that’s all they have."
Criminals get off all the time based on such things.
"Alternately you’d be fine with convicting somebody based on eye witness testimony, because they ‘saw it’, even if forensic evidence makes it impossible for them to have done it."
You liberals do that all the time in cases where people are falsely accused of 'abusing animals'.
"But then again, I’m debating somebody who doesn’t know what a logical fallacy is, so… yeah."
You have proven yourself top be the one who does not know what that it. as well s not knowing what the word 'conspiracy' means.

[1] February 18, 2015 at 4:24pm

COMEBACKSOON responded:

Oh Blinknight, when will you see reason?
The legitimacy of forensic evidence in justice is limited by the same logical limitations of other historical sciences. The presence of the suspects fingerprints on the murder weapon lets us know, beyond the shadow of a doubt that…wait for it…the suspect’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.
We INFER from the presence of the fingerprint that the suspect came in contact with the murder weapon, and further INFER that the contact included the use of the murder weapon in the act of murder.
In the presence of contradictory evidence, a jury would have to consider the possibilities that (1) the suspect might have come in contact with the murder weapon, but not in the act of murder; (2) the suspect never came into contact with the murder weapon, but another person placed the fingerprints onto the murder weapon in order to frame him. The unlikeliness of these scenarios must be weighed against the reliability of the contradictory evidence.
In the context of goo-to-you evolution as the cause of today’s biodiversity, there is only one eye witness account of the beginning of life in this world, and many people have found this witness to be otherwise completely reliable. We therefore reasonably consider the research that claims to prove common descent with skepticism, and find that in all cases, instead of proving common descent, the research simply assumes common descent to be true, and interprets the results accordingly.

[-1] February 18, 2015 at 10:06pm

blinknight responded:

@ComeBack
Presumably shortly after you quit trying to use a fake term like 'historical science', which is a completely made up bogus term that actual science does not use, and was made up by creationists like Ken Ham.
The rest of your 'objection' is summed up as 'It works when we say it does but when it says something we don't like then it doesn't count!'

[1] February 19, 2015 at 12:28pm

COMEBACKSOON responded:

Blinknight, you argue like a troll. Stop relying on ad-hominem attacks and face the facts.
For as long as science has existed, we have attempted to apply our discoveries in trial of our beliefs about the past and our origins. All such activities fall within the realm of science, but their products are very different. As I have explained above, one results in repeatable, testable knowledge, while the other results in uncertain inferences, subject to bias and debate. Only in the last hundred years have people attempted to convince the world that their products are the same, and the reason for this is clear: to spread their anti-God religion, and to justify tyranny. It is because of this institutional deception of the culture that reasonable people must now learn to distinguish between the two.
Your summation of my argument is ridiculous. My logic and explanation was perfectly sound. Your argument should not be that forensic criminology always results in certain knowledge of the past, because that is ridiculously, obviously untrue. Instead you should argue from the standpoint of the reliability of the contradictory evidence. From there, though, we will find that our division is one of disputed authority: you trust the fallible word of man, while I trust the infallible word of God.
However, your refusal to acknowledge obvious truths makes me wonder if you are not a paid troll, or else just zealously anti-God.

[3] February 6, 2015 at 4:47pm

Measles is not dangerous. People used to take their kids to measles parties so they could become actually immune.

The "R" in MMR stands for rubella, which is not dangerous to children true.
It is however extremely dangerous to pregnant women, causing all kinds of problems for a fetus. When you're willing to let your pregnant wife or daughter hang around with a bunch of non-vaccinated kids that have been exposed to measles, one of the most communicable diseases known to mankind, let me know.

[1] February 3, 2015 at 6:13pm

“I can spot Matt Walsh’s headlines a mile away.” I said the exact same thing to my wife last week.

Huffdaddy: The ultimate goal of creation is an Eternally Perfect Kingdom, populated by Eternal, Perfect, and Free People, perpetuating in joy together and with God. As I’ll explain, creating these People is the hardest thing that anyone could ever do, and meant God, Himself would have to suffer WITH each and every one of us, but also AS one of us. God knew that this ultimate goal was worth any price, and those who have tasted of it agree. I don’t fault you for finding this incredulous. I can only encourage you to search diligently for that kingdom whose treasures cannot be compared to the temporary sufferings of this world. Maybe you have experienced great suffering, and can’t imagine the kind of world that would make it worthwhile. Seek, though, and you will find.

But why should suffering be necessary? Because it is impossible to create a person that is both perfect and free, but we must be both. It is therefore necessary that we are made imperfect, and then choose to be made perfect. For a very brief time we experience both good and evil, and this allows us to make a free and informed decision to trust the Source of All Goodness, to complete our creation, making us the People we were always meant to be, finally capable of perpetual joy forever and ever, until the very memory of our light affliction has been replaced with the glory that came forth from it.

We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of God would do that?”

What could you thank me for if your life was spent on your knees thanking me? No kind of God would do that, because it’s ridiculous. I know you have experienced how praising something consummates your enjoyment of it. You hear a good joke, so you share it with the next person. Every good thing comes from me: every pleasure to be enjoyed in its season. To enjoy any good thing without thanksgiving is to miss out on the best part.

“’How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault,” Fry continued. “It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I would say.”

If the God who created you is so stupid, why should you be able to trust the reasoning ability with which He provided you? I knew when I created the world that there would be suffering, but I also knew that there was no other way to create a population of perfect creatures to fill my kingdom. Part of perfection is freedom, and another part is righteousness. If I create a righteous creature, that means I have limited the choices that he is able to make. Thus the only way to make a perfect creature is to make an imperfect creature, and let him choose to be made righteous. The suffering which is part of that process is temporary, but the joy is eternal.

We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of God would do that?”
What could you thank me for if your life was spent on your knees thanking me? No kind of God would do that, because it’s ridiculous. I know you have experienced how praising something consummates your enjoyment of it. You hear a good joke, so you share it with the next person. Every good thing comes from me: every pleasure to be enjoyed in its season. To enjoy any good thing without thanksgiving is to miss out on the best part.

[-3] February 2, 2015 at 4:09pm

“I’d say, ‘Bone cancer in children? What’s that about?’”

Allow me to introduce you to Milo. He experienced many good things, and many evil things in his life on earth, including the pain of bone cancer before I brought him home. These temporary experiences shaped him into an utterly unique creature, and allowed him to make the free, fully informed decision to abandon sin forever before entering my kingdom. He wants you to know that he would have suffered a thousand times over for just a glimpse of the life that I’ve given him for eternity. I want to assure you that he will be laughing, singing, dancing, and generally rejoicing while you burn, should your reject your salvation on his account.

“’How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault,” Fry continued. “It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I would say.”
If the God who created you is so stupid, why should you be able to trust the reasoning ability with which He provided you? I knew when I created the world that there would be suffering, but I also knew that there was no other way to create a population of perfect creatures to fill my kingdom. Part of perfection is freedom, and another part is righteousness. If I create a righteous creature, that means I have limited the choices that he is able to make. Thus the only way to make a perfect creature is to make an imperfect creature, and let him choose to be made righteous. The suffering which is part of that process is temporary, but the joy is eternal.

[1] February 2, 2015 at 7:43pm

huffdaddy responded:

That is sick!….pain is pain and where is the virtue in it? Maybe everone should just endure all the pain and disease they encounter to make god happy. Why go to the doctor or take any pain medication…al that would be spoiling god’s fun...apparantly, he enjoys watch humans suffer. He could stop it but doesn't.

[-2] January 27, 2015 at 5:59pm

Using observational, experimental science, we observe that circumstances X leads to Y. We also observe that Y exists in the present. The inference that the Y that we observe in the present must have been caused by circumstances X is practicing historical science, a totally different set of events then when we found X leading to Y.

One issue arises when you consider that C can also lead to Y. Furthermore, in the case of molecules to man evolution, we have never observed the X that leads to Y. We have observed A leading to B (microevolution), and evolutionists ASSUME that the same process can lead all the way to Y, which just isn’t the case.

At any rate, I know you are a zealot for naturalism, and cannot see reason when it comes to attacks on what you call science.

I’ll be more specific then. Evolution is a pillar of atheism, one of its central tenants.

And on the distinction between observational and historical science, you are a fool if you think molecules-to-man evolution has ever been observed. When we apply what we have learned by observing what occurs in the present in order to infer what happened in the past, this is a very different practice than when we perform experiments and develop technology in the present. Evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the difference because it would betray the fact that they are relying on unprovable assumptions. If anyone told you that “water freezes at zero degrees Celsius” is the same sort statement as “all life of earth is descended from a common ancestor,” you were lied to. If you will not acknowledge that one is provable and observable while the other is by nature unprovable and unobservable, then you are lying to yourself.

No one is advocating the teaching of creationism in government schools. Evolutionism and creationism are both religious ideologies, and neither should be taught in government schools. We can be so much more productive if we focus on observational science, leaving origins science to be taught by the private institutions that believe them.

Atheism may be a religion, but evolution is not. Evolution is a construct of science, and is the best possible theory currently presented to explain how species come to be, based on observation and the scientific method. The only way to claim that evolution is religion is to claim all science is religion. Science changes all the time, based on the evidence available, religious doctrine does not.

[-2] January 27, 2015 at 11:29am

REPUBLIKANER responded:

Tad- Science, as a whole, is a religion.

[2] January 27, 2015 at 1:07pm

blinknight responded:

I already addressed your 'evolution is a religion' nonsense. You repeating this lie isn't going to help your lost cause. I will once again point out that in spite of whatever BS creationist told you otherwise, there is no distinction between 'historical' and 'observational' science, we don't do science like that, all science is observational, and is not divided in to two categories like that. That is simply wrong.
@Republik
'Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, religion is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved. If you show me that something works I will change my mind, I will spin on a F'ing dime, I'll be embarrassed as hell, but I'll run through the streets shouting 'It's a miracle!'" - Tim Minchin

[5] January 27, 2015 at 1:50pm

Ars_Rhetorica responded:

"Evolutionism and creationism are both religious ideologies.."
Thats the equivalent of you saying Gravity and Transubstantiation are both evidence of catholic infallibility. I'm assuming you DO believe in gravity correct? Judging by your distrust of science, its possible you believe in transubstantiation too. I can prove both gravity and evolution, prove transubstantiation, please.

[-2] January 27, 2015 at 5:50pm

COMEBACKSOON responded:

I'll be more specific then. Evolution is a pillar of atheism, one of its central tenants.
And on the distinction between observational and historical science, you are a fool if you think molecules-to-man evolution has ever been observed. When we apply what we have learned by observing what occurs in the present in order to infer what happened in the past, this is a very different practice than when we perform experiments and develop technology in the present. Evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the difference because it would betray the fact that they are relying on unprovable assumptions. If anyone told you that "water freezes at zero degrees Celsius" is the same sort statement as "all life of earth is descended from a common ancestor," you were lied to. If you will not acknowledge that one is provable and observable while the other is by nature unprovable and unobservable, then you are lying to yourself.

[1] January 27, 2015 at 7:03pm

blinknight responded:

@Comeback
Atheists don't believe in gods, they are not required to understand, accept, or even know about any scientific concept, including evolution. There are theists who completely accept evolution, and an atheist who doesn't believe evolution might be uncommon, but there's absolutely no reason they couldn't.
Once again: There is no such thing as 'historical vs observation' science, that isn't how it works, science doesn't do it that way. That's a bunch of hooey you got from a creationist website or video. There is no such thing. You will find it in no science books anywhere. It's something they made up.

January 28, 2015 at 12:30am

TheMotWay responded:

CBS –
‘…you are a fool if you think molecules-to-man evolution has ever been observed.’
Is it fun being able to without compunction just make up anything you want about any subject and state it as ‘fact’. You do know no one knows what the heck you are talking about….are you refering to the Big Bang or Abiogenesis when you say molecules to man?
Please, impress us with more of your amazing grasp of scientific concepts. Can you make up (or lie) some more…we take it as entertainment that you actually beleive this is what science has to say on a subject. Do you ever get frustrated with constantly being corrected for not being able to learn simple definitions of words? Or, is it ‘deliberate misrepresentation’. Another stalwart breaker of the 9th…someone for kids to look up to and emmulate.
Mot

[1] January 28, 2015 at 8:50am

SoWhat123 responded:

You cannot believe in science, you can only understand it. No faith required to make science true.

[-4] January 27, 2015 at 10:13am

This is good. Evolution is a religion, so a religious group has called for and received recognition of a religious holiday. Now if we are persistent in calling them out for obfuscating observational science with historical science (which attempts to connect preconceived beliefs about the unobservable past with observable data in the present), we might be able to halt the use of government agencies from being used to impose the atheistic religion of naturalism on the culture.

Evolution is not a religion. How on earth could you classify it as one?
By the way, all science is observational and there is no such thing as historical science. You've been lied to if you think science makes any such distinction.

[1] January 27, 2015 at 7:33pm

TheMotWay responded:

CBS –
I love how you need to both lie and bring Science down to the level of a religion….so very rich. I don’t want to leave out your firm grasp of Science…truly astounding!
Mot

[-1] December 19, 2014 at 2:20pm

#8 brings in the idea of “responsibilities”. In truth, rights and responsibilities are two sides to the same coin. Thus, we ask, to whom are we responsible? Again, if not God, then man. If the mighty care not for our consideration of others, then we have no such responsibility.

#4 brings “rights” into the discussion, which begs the question, where do “rights” come from? If not God, then man. Thus this is only true where the mighty agree to it. This would also require several caveats (which the Ten Commandments, when understood in the original language, do not). This “law” implies that it is wrong to imprison criminals.

#5 is merely a statement of opinion. How do atheists define “good” or “full and meaningful”?

#6 says “you must take responsibility for [your actions]”. If there is no God and you don’t get caught, why would you have to “take responsibility” for your actions?

#7 attempts to improve on the golden rule, but in application results in the politically correct idiocy that we’re dealing with today. Don’t worry about treating people the way “they want to be treated”. Acting in good faith as you would have someone do to you, you will easily forgive the accidental insults or injuries of another who is also acting in good faith as they would have you do to them. If someone does not afford you that grace, they are not yet seeking to live in harmony with other human beings. This also ignores the many applicable cases where the good thing to do is not the thing that they want you to do. This is often the case for parents raising their children.

#8 brings in the idea of “responsibilities”. In truth, rights and responsibilities are two sides to the same coin. Thus, we ask, to whom are we responsible? Again, if not God, then man. If the mighty care not for our consideration of others, then we have no such responsibility.
#10 – Better for who? Humans? Crows? Fish?

December 19, 2014 at 2:19pm

It is absolutely possible to be (relatively) good without believing in God. That’s not the point of Christianity. The Moral Law, as manifested in limited scope via the Ten Commandments, provides an illustration of the NATURE (and not just the actions) of the person who is able to enter an eternally perfect kingdom, abiding there forever, perpetuating joy and causing no pain or strife whatsoever. The lesson that you are supposed to learn from the Old Testament is that we do not have such a nature, and must place our hope and trust in the God who is able to transform us into the perfect versions of ourselves, the creatures that we were always meant to be. But we must also be free, thus we begin our existence imperfect, so that we are able to choose to be made perfect.

That said, this attempt to “improve” on the Moral Law is laughable. #9 says there is no one right way to live, which basically means you can totally disregard the others if they don’t suit you. The first three have nothing to do with morality whatsoever, but instead deal with how a person should form beliefs. As previously mentioned, a person can believe just about anything and still be a (relatively) good person.

#4 brings “rights” into the discussion, which begs the question, where do “rights” come from? If not God, then man. Thus this is only true where the mighty agree to it. This would also require several caveats (which the Ten Commandments, when understood in the original language, do not). This “law” implies that it is wrong to imprison criminals.
#5 is merely a statement of opinion. How do atheists define “good” or “full and meaningful”?
#6 says “you must take responsibility for [your actions]”. If there is no God and you don’t get caught, why would you have to “take responsibility” for your actions?
#7 attempts to improve on the golden rule, but in application results in the politically correct idiocy that we’re dealing with today. Don’t worry about treating people the way “they want to be treated”. Acting in good faith as you would have someone do to you, you will easily forgive the accidental insults or injuries of another who is also acting in good faith as they would have you do to them. If someone does not afford you that grace, they are not yet seeking to live in harmony with other human beings. This also ignores the many applicable cases where the good thing to do is not the thing that they want you to do. This is often the case for parents raising their children.